[Claeren]

One thing being left out in the viability debate is how byproducts of production are accounted for.

Coal is FAR cheaper than solar if you do not account for pollution. If you assign a high price to pollution things like solar become far more affordable comparably.

(In short, Coal moves its 'cost' from the production ledger and moves it over to the lingering effects ledger. Gas same thing. Nuclear same thing although split slightly differently -- higher production cost, less immediate lingering effects but more super-long term effects. Solar has all of its cost in production but none in long term lingering effects).


Also, the eventual 'alternative clean energy' world will not be centered around just one technology. Solar doesn't have to provide 100% of our energy needs. The question is can we find a mix of energy use reduction (<by far the cheapest and most practical step), solar, wind, geothermal, etc so that the average family can provide enough energy to live at a high enough quality of life generation after generation in a sustainable way.

If you look at the average energy use in a home (100%). Can we reduce 40% from that right off the top in conservation. Solar 20%. Wind 20%. Geo-thermal (home heating) 20%? Just an example, but the point is that when split up the task is not as daunting.

I think that is fairly attainable in our lifetimes with continues small steps in the right direction.



Claeren.